Hormesis and risk communication

Human and Experimental Toxicology

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 3-24

  Renn, Ortwin ^a  

^a Ctr Technol Assess Baden W   (Germany)

Author keywords

Risk communication; Risk management; Risk perception; Risk regulation; Stakeholder involvement; Trust

Indexed keywords

CARCINOGEN; ESTROGEN; HERBICIDE; PESTICIDE;

CULTURAL FACTOR; DOSE RESPONSE; ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD; EMPIRICISM; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH HAZARD; HORMESIS; HUMAN; IONIZING RADIATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; POLICY; POLITICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC OPINION; PUBLIC RELATIONS; RADIATION EXPOSURE; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIAL ASPECT; STIMULUS RESPONSE;

ANIMALS; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NO-OBSERVED-ADVERSE-EFFECT LEVEL; PUBLIC HEALTH; RISK ASSESSMENT; XENOBIOTICS;

EID: 0037221413     PISSN: 09603271     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1191/0960327103ht314oa     Document Type: Review

References (66)

1. Rohrmann B, Renn O. Risk perception research - an introduction. In Renn O, Rohrmann B eds. Cross-cultural risk perception. A survey of empirical studies. Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer, 2000: 11-54.
2. Peltu M. Media reporting of risk information: uncertainties and the future. In Jungermann H, Kasperson RE, Wiedemann PM eds. Risk communication. Jülich: Nuclear Research Center, 1988: 11-32.
3. Baram M. The right to know and the duty to disclose hazard information. Am J Public Health 1984; 74: 385-90.
4. National Research Council, Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment of Risks to Public Health. Risk assessment in the Federal Government: managing the process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1983.
5. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA, Holand CD. Hormesis: a highly generalizable and reproducible phenomenon with important implications for risk assessment. Risk Anal 1999; 19: 261-81.
6. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA. The frequency of U-shaped dose responses in the toxicological literature. Toxicol Sci 2001; 61: 330-38.
7. Stebbing ARD. A theory for growth hormesis. Mutat Res 1998; 403: 249-58.
8. Lee TR. The public perception of risk and the question of irrationality. In Royal Society of Great Britain ed. Risk perception, Volume 376. London: The Royal Society, 1981: 5-16.
9. Renn O. Implications of the hormesis hypothesis for risk perception and communication. Hum Environ Toxicol 1998; 17: 431-38.
10. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR. Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In Krimsky S, Golding D eds. Social theories of risk. Westport: Praeges, 1992: 251-74.
11. Rayner S, Cantor R. How fair is safe enough? The cultural approach to societal technology choice. Risk Anal 1987; 7: 3-13.
12. Renn O, Levine D. Trust and credibility in risk communication. In Kasperson R, Stallen PJ eds. Communicating risk to the public. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991: 175-218.
13. Renn O. The role of risk communication and public dialogue for improving risk management. In Gerrard S, Kerry Turner R, Bateman IJ eds. Environmental risk planning and management. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing House, 2001: 312-37.
14. Slovic P. Perceived risk, trust and democracy. Risk Anal 1993; 13: 675-82.
15. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA. Radiation hormesis: the demise of a legitimate hypothesis. Hum Exp Toxicol 2000; 19: 76-84.
16. Renn O, Rohrmann B. Cross-cultural risk perception research: state and challenges. In Renn O, Rohrmann B eds. Cross-cultural risk perception. A survey of empirical studies. Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer, 2000: 211-33.
17. Cadiou J-M. The changing relationship between science, technology and governance. The IPTS Report 2001; 52: 27-29.
18. Brickman RS, Jasonoff S, Ilgen T. Controlling chemicals: the politics of regulation in Europe and the United States. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985.
19. O'Riordan T, Wynne B. Regulating environmental risks: a comparative perspective. In Kleindorfer PR, Kunreuther HC eds. Insuring and managing hazardous risks: from Seveso to Bhopal and beyond. Berlin: Springer, 1987: 389-410.
20. Renn O. Style of using scientific expertise: a comparative framework. Sci Pub Pol 1995; 22: 147-56.
21. Douglas M, Wildavsky A. Risk and culture. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1982.
22. Rayner S. Risk in cultural perspective: acting under uncertainty. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1990.
23. Thompson M, Ellis W, Wildavsky A. Cultural theory. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1990.
24. Wildavsky A, Dake K. Theories of risk perception: who fears what and why? Daedalus 1990; 119: 41-60.
25. Schwarz M, Thompson M. Divided we stand: redefining politics, technology, and social choice. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990.
26. Nelkin D. Blunders in the business of risk. Nature 1982; 298: 775-76.
27. Sjöberg L. Explaining risk perception: an empirical evaluation of cultural theory. Risk, Decision Pol 1997; 2: 113-30.
28. Petty RE, Cacioppo E. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 1986; 19: 123-205.
29. Plough A, Krimsky S. The emergence of risk communication studies: social and political context. Sci Technol Hum Values 1987; 12: 78-85.
30. Leiss W. Three phases in risk communication practice. In Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Special Issue, Kunreuther H, Slovic P eds. Challenges in risk assessment and risk management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996: 85-94.
31. Fischhoff B. Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. Risk Anal 1995; 15: 137-45.
32. Stern PC, Fineberg V. Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society. National Research Council, Committee on Risk Characterization. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1996.
33. Drottz-Sjöberg B-M. Perception of risk. Studies of risk attitudes, perceptions, and definitions. Stockholm: Center for Risk Research, 1991.
34. Dake K. Orienting dispositions in the perceptions of risk: an analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. J Cross-Cultural Psychol 1991; 22: 61-82.
35. Boholm A. Comparative studies of risk perception: a review of twenty years of research. J Risk Res 1998; 1: 135-63.
36. Sandmann PM. Hazard versus outrage: a conceptual frame for describing public perception of risk. In Jungermann H, Kasperson RE, Wiedemann P eds. Risk communication. Jülich: Forschungszentrum. Jülich, 1989: 163-68.
37. Covello VT, Slovic P, von Winterfeldt D. Risk communication: a review of the literature. Risk Abstracts 1986; 3: 172-82.
38. National Research Council. Improving risk communication. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989.
39. Renn O. Risk communication: towards a rational dialogue with the public. J Hazard Mater 1992: 29: 465-519.
40. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979; 47: 263-91.
41. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science 1987; 236: 280-85.
42. Lopes LL. Some thoughts on the psychological concept of risk. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1983; 9: 137-44.
43. Morgan G. Choosing and managing technology-induced risk. In Glickman TS, Gough M eds. Readings in risk. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 1990: 17-28.
44. Slovic P. Perception of risk: reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In Krimsky S, Golding D eds. Social theories of risk. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1992: 117-52.
45. Jaeger CC, Renn O, Rosa E, Webler Th. Risk, uncertainty and rational action. London: Earthscan, 2001.
46. Renn O. Risk perception and risk management: a review. Risk Abstracts 1990; 7: No. 1, 1-9 (Part 1) and No. 2, 1-9 (Part 2).
47. Sjöberg L. Factors in risk perception. Risk Anal 2000; 20: 1-11.
48. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. Perceived risk: psychological factors and social implications. In the Royal Society eds. Proceedings of the Royal Society, A376. London: the Royal Society, 1981: 17-34.
49. Barber B. The logic and limits of trust. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1983.
50. Earle TC, Cvetkovich G. Social trust: towards a cosmopolitan society. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1995.
51. Kasperson R, Golding D, Tuler S. Social distrust as factor in siting hazardous facilities and communicating risks. J Soc Sci 1992; 48: 161-87.
52. Slovic P, Layman M, Flynn J. Risk perception, trust, and nuclear power: lessons from Yucca Mountain. Environment 1991; 33: 6-11, 28-30.
53. Luhmann N. Ökologische Kommunikation. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1986.
54. Luhmann N. Technology, environment, and social risk: a systems perspective. Ind Crisis Q 1990; 4: 223-31.
55. Baum A, Gatchel RJ, Schaeffer MA. Emotional, behavioral, and physiological effects of chronic stress at Three Mile Island. J Consult Psychol 1983; 51: 565-72.
56. Morgan MG, Fishhoff B, Bostrom A, Atmann CJ. Risk communication. A mental model approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
57. Yosie TF, Herbst TD. Managing and communicating stakeholder-based decision making. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 1998; 4: 643-46.
58. Webler Th, Renn O. A brief primer on participation: philosophy and practice. In Renn O, Webler Th, Wiedemann PM eds. Fairness and competence in citizen participation. Evaluating new models for environmental discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1995: 17-34.
59. Connor D. Generic design for public involvement programs. Constructive Citizen Participation 1993; 21: 1-2.
60. Chess C, Dietz T, Shannon M. Who should deliberate when? Hum Ecol Rev 1998; 5: 60-68.
61. Renn O. The challenge of integrating deliberation and expertise: participation and discourse in risk management. In McDaniels TL, Small M eds. Risk and governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, in press.
62. Renn O. Diskursive Verfahren der Technikfolgenabschätzung. In Petermann Th, Coenen R eds. Technikfolgenabschätzung in Deutschland. Bilanz und Perspektiven. Frankfurt am Main: Campus, 1999: 115-30.
63. Renn O. A model for an analytic deliberative process in risk management. Environ Sci Technol 1999; 33: 3049-55.
64. Bohnenblust H, Slovic P. Integrating technical analysis and public values in risk-based decision making. Reliabil Eng Sys Safe 1998; 59: 151-59.
65. Mulligan J, McCoy E, Griffiths A. Principles of communicating risks. Alberta: The Macleod Institute for Environmental Analysis, University of Calgary, 1998.
66. Allen FW. Towards a holistic appreciation of risk: the challenge for communicators and policymakers. Sci Technol Hum Value 1987; 12: 138-43.